FDA Prop 65 NRT Warning Rejection Should Be Given Deference, Firms Say
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
FDA's view that a Prop 65 pregnancy warning on OTC nicotine replacement therapies is "without scientific foundation" should be given more weight, NRT firms assert in a brief filed in California Supreme Court Jan. 21
You may also be interested in...
NRT Firms’ Deference To “Informal” FDA Letters In Prop 65 Case Improper
NRT firms' reliance on "unpublished, ad hoc" FDA statements to support their contention that a Proposition 65 warning on OTC smoking cessation products conflicts with federal law is improper, according to a brief filed in California Supreme Court April 15
NRT Firms’ Deference To “Informal” FDA Letters In Prop 65 Case Improper
NRT firms' reliance on "unpublished, ad hoc" FDA statements to support their contention that a Proposition 65 warning on OTC smoking cessation products conflicts with federal law is improper, according to a brief filed in California Supreme Court April 15
NRT Firms’ Deference To “Informal” FDA Letters In Prop 65 Case Improper
NRT firms' reliance on "unpublished, ad hoc" FDA statements to support their contention that a Proposition 65 warning on OTC smoking cessation products conflicts with federal law is improper, according to a brief filed in California Supreme Court April 15